United States District Court Judge Roger Vinson has struck down the entirety of the National Health Care law (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) as unconstitutional. What is most interesting is his decision that the entire act had to be struck down because of the individual mandate provision’s unconstitutionality. Vinson grants declaratory relief but declines to grant injunctive relief.
Joined by governors and attorneys general from 26 states, the Florida challenge was broader than the recent Virginia challenge — that led to the striking down of the individual mandate provision. I have previously written about my own concerns over the constitutionality of that provision.
The decision of Judge Vinson will only increase the already high likelihood that the Supreme Court will review the controversy. The two major decisions in Virginia and Florida will be reviewed by two different courts of appeal. Two other rulings (supporting the law) are also moving toward the Supreme Court.
The rule also represents a rejection of the Administration’s effort to avoid review by challenging the standing of the state attorneys general. Ironically, I reviewed the Bond v. U.S. (09-1227) case in my Supreme Court class today. That case involves a woman who challenged her conviction on federalism grounds. The Third Circuit ruled that only states and state officials could challenge federal laws on federalism grounds. The Obama Administration (correctly in my view) switched sides before the Court and ended up arguing for the Bond that she did have standing. This could prove an important term on standing doctrine. The conservatives justices have been generally hostile to standing and have gradually carved out individuals and groups who can seek review of some laws.
Judge Vinson ruled that he could not treat the individual mandate provision as severable and thus (after agreeing with Judge Hudson in Virginia that the provision is unconstitutional) he struck down the entire act. He stated: Judge Roger Vinson said as a result of the unconstitutionality of the “individual mandate” that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be thrown out:
“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.”
The court notes that Congress elected not to include a severability clause despite the fact that one was in an earlier version of the law — setting itself up for such a total rejection of the law.
The decision is a strong expression of federalism, starting with Madison’s famous statement from the Federalist Papers 51:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over
men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next
place oblige it to control itself.
The problem is the lack of a limiting principle in the arguments in favor of the law. Vinson notes:
The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course
of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a
morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service
and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on
interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not.
He notes the political pressure in the case: “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the
entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is
virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.”
In rejecting an injunction, the court indicates that declaratory and injunctive relief should be essentially fungible:
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added). There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
I doubt the Administration will view it that way. They have two decision upholding the law and two rejecting the law on the district level. They are not likely to view themselves constructively enjoined.
Here is the entire decision by Judge Vinson: Vinson
Jonathan Turley
I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably say it again, arguing theology only works if you’re all playing the same edition of D&D.
Buddha,
That’s one of my favorite Lewis Black comedy routines. Did you see Black a few nights ago on The Daily Show? The segment was called Back in Black: Meat Edition. He talked about Taco Bell.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-1-2011/back-in-black—meat-edition
“Any so-called Christian who doesn’t take care of their offspring is by definition not a Christian NO MATTER WHAT THEY CLAIM.”
I would paraphrase your statement:
“Any so-called Christian who doesn’t take care of their fellow human beings is by definition not a Christian NO MATTER WHAT THEY CLAIM.”
That is known to Christians as the “Golden Rule.” However, you and your white supremacist brethren actually follow a different “Golden Rule.” That one is “Do unto others…first!”
Bingo!
Tootie,
Were one to pick and choose particu;ar passages from the Torah and from the Gospels, then anything can be justified. This is what you and those who believe as you do. It’s known as missing the forest for the trees. The purpose of prophetic teaching and developing a moral sense in society is to allow people to see an entire picture. Abraham is considered by Jews to be one of our patriarchs and yet his story is one of a highly imperfect man. Why do you think that is?
Perhaps its because the Torah was meant to be read and discussed and argued over, in order that individuals might use their intelligence to reach for what to them is truth. Jesus taught in parables, whose meanings were not readily apparent. I imagine he did that to get his followers to think for themselves. The ignorant, however, refuse to look beyond the obvious and in that process pirate these teachings for their own egotism. If you really believe that Jesus today would be the kind of racist conservative you follow slavishly, you’ve sadly missed your saviors boat and become a tool for those who use his name to perpetrate evil rather than good.
Did I mention is was hysterically stupid as well?
Yeah.
A faux Christian telling a Jew how to be a Jew. That’s just hysterically funny. Speaking of which . . .
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g&w=480&h=390]
Stam:
The reason you call me a Taliban is because you know I am not dangerous. If I were the Taliban and you gave me your real name, you could not sleep at night.
This proves your characterization of me is stupid.
Mike Spindell
You said
“Jews wrote the Torah, not Christians.”
And so what? Who believes the Torah? You or me?
ME.
“Jews do not believe in the inherent evil of the human race.”
Maybe that should read: Jews who disbelieve God’s statements in Genesis 6 and 8 do not believe in the inherent evil of the human race.
It’s so inherent that God regretted making the human race on earth at all. God says:
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (Genesis 6:6)
The whole thing down here on planet earth almost ended except for 8 people. Only 8! We have about 7 billion people on the planet now. Once there were only 8 (after God zapped the rest).
You don’t think there is something extremely wrong with the human race when God nearly cut it off here from continuing?
“Jesus certainly didn’t [believe in inherent evil] if the Gospels are proof of his teachings. So where did this come from?”
It comes from scripture. The OT and the Gospels. For example, the Gospel of John:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 (the Gospel of John)
Who is perishing? The inherently good?
In Luke we read:
“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him? (Luke 11:13)
The Greek in this portion of scripture goes like this:
“The Greek expression πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες (poneroi hyparchontes). Now poneroi is defined in the Greek lexicon as “bad, of a bad nature or condition.” But it is also defined as “full of labors, annoyances, hardships.” And hyparchontes is translated as “from the very beginning” or “being inherently.” (The Archdiocese of Washington Blog)
That, among other evidences, is where such an idea comes from. And whether it would be true or not for you, this inherent evil can be suppressed (the virtuous godless prove it).
Jesus was a Jew. And he disagrees with you.
I should think the Jew would be he or she who claims that the Torah is true in all things rather than the Jew (like you) who fictionalizes the Torah away into oblivion.
What have you to be jealous of with these Jews who believe God as King David believed, anyway? You’ve left nothing of God to be greatly desired except for the purposes of a super-duper rabbit’s foot.
Since non-Jews can be as good as you without your version of God then all you have over them IS the rabbit’s foot. Even so, a good many evil people have prospered more than you ever will.
So, even your rabbit’s foot isn’t all that special.
And by the way, one cannot be a Jew unless one converts. So any evil intent you lay at the feet of Christians regarding the idea of converting is really beyond the pale. I could be a Jew if I converted to one and I don’t attach some diabolical intent to Jews because of it. In fact, I don’t attach to them some diabolical intent.
And it was the Jews who had secreted away the Old Testament scriptures beyond the Torah in the Jewish Temple. The Christians and Constantine had nothing to do with squirreling away those scrolls. The Hebrew scriptures as they were found (and then transliterated) were kept by the JEWS in the 2nd Temple of Solomon.
And when did I say anything about “original sin”? If I did, erred. I say all men are sinners, I don’t talk about original sin. I talk about the beginning of sin entering into the world but I don’t talk about a specific doctrine called Original Sin.
Even the OT scriptures says
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5
Which Christian are you going to blame that on? Wasn’t it a Jew who collected the Psalms?
It’s the Catholics who claim Original Sin doctrine, not me. I’m a baptist. We don’t believe that. Original sin led to infant baptism and as you will recall disagreeing with that proposal led to the persecution of baptists by the Catholic church. And infant baptism also played a key role in igniting the Protestant Reformation, which the Catholic church though ought to be a bloody affair.
Speaking of baptists. There was John. John the Baptist. This is a very old line indeed. Oh. And he was a Jew, even if you won’t allow it.
If I have only two people to believe in this world, the Jew Jesus Christ or the Jew Mike Spindell, it isn’t going to be you. You offer me NOTHING. Nothing but uncertainty in life and then death. Kaput. Darkness. Emptiness. In addition you offer a most horrific spectacle: you offer injustice for all the innocent children of the world who suffered and died and knew only misery and saw no perpetrator punished.
The Jew, Jesus Christ, offers me everything. Including justice for those who suffered and did not receive an accounting for it while on earth, including the victims of the Holocaust. According to your vision they will receive no justice, or at the least, might not.
What an ugly thought. To me it is illogical.
You write: “Jews do not believe in the inherent evil of the human race.”
What you probably mean to say is: “A lot of Jews IGNORE the word of God (Torah) and make up junk about what it means because they cannot tolerate what the words really mean and are embarrassed about things in the Torah like stoning people to death, slavery, prohibitions against masturbation, and slaughtering animals for animal sacrifice as part of ones relationship with Jehovah and atonement for sins.”
I reckon it explains why many Jews fictionalize the scriptures away to oblivion.
Well, I’m not ashamed of God. And I take his word at face value (unless it does not make sense to do so). And if you cut God off in the middle of his lecture to mankind by ignoring the remaining Hebrew writings you will never understand what is literal or figurative and that probably explains why your god is akin to a glorified rabbit’s foot.
You wrote “It also leads to another pernicious thread and that is if the world is evil, that we can wreak any havoc we want on its ecology.”
That notion is widespread pop-culture baloney perpetuated by bigoted Christophobes. The Bible (the 66 book variety) teaches stewardship of the earth, not defilement. In the end (according to Christian scripture) God also punishes mankind for destroying the earth. The meaning of destroy in the verse I refer to means: to corrupt it, defile it, or change it for the worse. God punishes mankind for hurting the earth physically. And even though you do not believe this, this is what the NT scriptures have taught for 2,000 years. And the Christophobes will be running the place at that time when mankind is to be called to an accounting for it (when they are not beheading Christians, of course).
Perhaps you are the type who thinks all white people are Christians and any time a white person does something evil, they must be a Christian. I run into this a lot. But just because white people polluted things over the decades doesn’t mean they were all Christians.
And the biggest polluters around the planet these days are the godless communists in Russia and China: you know, those friends of the leftists in America. And their trashing of the planet has nothing to do with their belief in Original sin or innate evil.
You write: “There is no where in my posts where I specifically said that when Christians have a lack of education they are evil.”
You just imply it. Like here:
“They have no idea what sex is about and the men think it’s all about them. Their idea of womanhood is to keep them barefoot, pregnant, but also working and doing the chores. It’s an evil, hateful cycle perpetrated by people who falsely believe they know anything about morality.”
If they falsely believe something then they are not educated. And because they are not educated they are committing this evil thing. You have no compassion for them. Period. It is clear you despise them.
You and I both know the numbers we are looking at here are high in the locations you are talking about especially because of the high percentage of blacks in the states you are referring to. I have noted this several times and you have evaded it completely. I’ve provided you with solid information and data (with hyperlinks) about WHO has the highest unwed motherhood stats and so forth and you have provided me with nothing but to say I’ve got my info wrong.
You only focus on Christians and you never mention black’s substantial contribution to the numbers we are talking about.
Perhaps people ARE AFRAID TO DISCUSS THIS OPENLY because people like yourself have over the past 25 years have turned any honest discussion about human behavior in racial terms into a racist act. It appears you have driven yourself into an intellectual dead end. And, it doesn’t help blacks or whites to do so. I even provided information from a black scholar who isn’t afraid to talk about these things. Your side has poisoned the debate and discourages frankness.
If you don’t hesitate to mention religion, why do you hesitate to mention race as if it didn’t matter? And if you don’t think it is a big deal to mention religion, let me put it this way. If I was really a Taliban member (as many here allege I am) no one, not even you, would say the things you say to me because you would fear for your lief. You wouldn’t have the guts to say the things to a Taliban member that you have said to me here, if you are posting under your real name. This is because you, and those who smear me with the label of Taliban, smear me with complete confidence that I pose no threat or danger to you.
You are all a bunch of cowards!
You say what you say about Christians while ignoring the other factors, because are the bigot. Instead of talking about a key factor in these problems you dwell on religious people (specifically Christians) because you detest them. YOU brought up the Bible belt and you were not referring to the Jewish garment industry.
You said:
“The highest rate of unwanted children being born is in the South and particularly the Bible Belt.”
This was your main response to the problem. CHRISTIANITY. When, in fact race appears to be a strong contributor. Especially since many of the states considered blue have high concentrations of Catholics. Like Massachusetts for example. You automatically brag about how smart they all are and never even mention that the religion there might have an impact. Only the religion in the south has the impact.
My point is you refused to mention race even though it is foolish to discuss the subject without mentioning it because of the huge statistical difference between the various groups. (Asians having a high rate of marriage and little divorce). You have steered so far around it that you are now on the other side of the universe. You have already stated that the Christians were uneducated or poor so they would be in the same boat with the blacks in that regard. And since there are no whites folks standing around forbidding blacks to marry or have babies within wedlock you inadvertently left yourself with NOTHING to explain this problem but your myopic Christophobia.
And, in what appears to be a last ditch effort to get yourself out of this mess, you come up with this silly thing:
“The highest rates of divorce in the country exists in the so-called “Red (conservative)States.” The lowest divorce rates are in the so-called “Blue (liberal) States.”
Yes, I know about this dubious statistic. But this information is deceiving. The government could probably not get the real numbers because people move in and out of a state and cannot be tracked for as long a period as would be necessary. They didn’t track every marriage and see if each particular marriage ended in divorce. People often marry in one state divorce in another. They can marry in a college town and divorce back home. They may cohabit more and so don’t marry in the first place. The stats taken are the stats of the divorce rate for a STATE POPULATION instead of a divorce RATE PER EACH MARRIAGE. This is why these numbers cannot give us enough information.
If you want to compare what goes on between liberal blue-state areas of the USA to elsewhere, look at what has gone on in Scandinavia. It is more liberal, more leftist, and has a higher percentage of the population with college degrees (in comparison to the USA). It is also very white (like Vermont for example). Scandinavia’s population also has an overall higher IQ than the USA. It’s lefty nirvana and virtually atheist.
The numbers of divorce continued to rise in Scandinavia for years after relaxing the marriage laws. Then, co-habitation became more customary and less “official” marriages were put on the books AS DID THE STATS ON DIVORCE (since people were simply not getting married). These pseudo marriages also break up but cannot be counted like official divorce because they were more informal legally. Then homosexual marriage became law about 20 years ago or so and marriage, as it once was, is nearly virtually dead in Scandinavia.
This is the likely future of the leftist marriage anywhere in the world. But it is likely that the people who are holding back America from the Scandinavian situation are the people you especially detest: Christians. They appear to be stabilizing the downward trend. This is just a guess, but it is a logical one. Again, the New Testament clearly teaches that a man and woman are to be husband and wife. They are to get married. And even in the Jewish tradition, that was a momentous event delineated and legitimized formally by the couple, religious leaders, the community, and even the state.
So for a Christian to violate this clear command to become more than two people living together, points towards to these persons NOT being Christians by virtue of what they are doing. Marriage is a most serious matter.
Since many of the blue states with lower divorce rates have high catholic populations you are likely bragging about THEIR achievements or influences on the numbers.
These maps of catholic states and blue states are very similar.
http://www.adherents.com/maps/map_us_romcath.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_state,_blue_state.svg
You wrote:
“Having worked for 11 years in the field of child welfare and in the location of husbands not paying support, I can tell you that the same percentage of Christians do not feel/act responsibly to their children as does any other group.”
Again, perhaps you associate most white people in the south as being a Christian. Any so-called Christian who doesn’t take care of their offspring is by definition not a Christian NO MATTER WHAT THEY CLAIM. The New Testament states it this way:
“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (NASB) 1 Timothy 5:8
Clear as a bell: DENIED THE FAITH.
In other words, according to Christianity such a parent as you describe as being a Christian, is NOT a Christian.
But I guess after so many years of believing you get to define what a Jew is (instead of letting the Hebrew scriptures define it) you feel yourself an expert at defining what a Christian is as well despite what the Christian scriptures define it as.
Zoe Brain…..Damn!
I had never heard the term ‘Intersexed’ before but I followed the hovercraft to your site and the article on it was excellent. I did a paper on the transexual experience in college many many years ago,… I can’t for the life of me understand how people can recognize the amazing science of discovery and yet still discount the movement of the stars……
Lottakatz – “freak” I don’t mind. Objectively, it’s accurate. It’s thought that only one person in 10,000,000 changes apparent sex from male to female. That was only one of the symptoms, by the way, my whole cholesterol metabolism is just plain odd. Enough so there was serious debate as to whether I am H.Sap or not.
Tootie’s a pussy-cat.
For example, some comments on a RadFem Lesbian site, regarding the Transgender Day of Remembrance, where we remember those shot, stabbed, strangled, beaten, stoned, gutted, flayed, disembowelled etc etc for being TS, IS, or TG. Or perceived to be. Or being seen in the company with someone who is perceived to be.
About some medical advances that might allow Intersexed and even some trans women to bear children:
That’s from the Radical Feminist Left.
From the Religious Right… let’s see, so many to choose from.. how about the well-funded political group, MassResistance, probably best known for their campaigns of harassment against Trans children under 10:
I’m sorry, and I really don’t mean to be disrespectful of Tootie – but since I get that kind of stuff all the time, those feeble attacks just gave me a fit of the giggles.
Zoe, There isn’t a minority 2T hasn’t insulted lately but damn, I was appalled at that. I apologize for that and that’s not the way people behave on Turleyblawg. Maybe I’m wrong and ‘freak’ was just a word that was convenient but you just don’t know with 2T any more. Anything might just tumble out of her mouth.
I liked your rationale regarding the Merchant Seaman Act BTW, not a snowballs chance, but very creative. I’d vote for it. 🙂
Lottakatz – thanks for reminding me.
I’m Intersexed. It’s quite normal for me to get far, far worse than anything Tootie has said. I forget sometimes that this is not the norm.
Tootie, I have no conclusion left to me other than that you are mentally ill and not properly medicated.
You decry the “attacks” Stamford Yankee/Liberal makes against you but ignore your ubiquitous, casually delivered, unrestrained attacks on others. And a general and entertaining rationale’ for expanded, government funded health care from Zoe Brain which was not in any way rude to you, was answered with a string of insults to her culminating in “You are a freak and a fascist.” And that was shortly after Mike S. pointed out your lack of manners.
Your behavior is out of control. The quality of your postings and behaviour has degenerated over the many months you have been visiting here. You are no longer fit for a normal discussion.
If you deal with people in 3D in the same manner as you do here then I strongly suggest you seek assistance with the internal rage and conflict that has begun to drive your interactons. They are no longer healthy in any accepted sense.
If you only behave this way here then you can expect little except similar abuse from those others that will interact with you. You invite abuse, that is not healthy.
Tootsie – “freak” I’ll plead guilty to. “Fascist”, not as such.
As for the rest, please have a look at “Straw Man Arguments” and “Ad Hominem”.
As for “no good reason” – see the “Zimmerman Telegram” et al.
Tootie
1, February 2, 2011 at 7:38 am
Lotta:
You have to have an amendment for such a scheme. But I appreciate that among all these folks you seem to be the only one who is interested in having a Constitutionally authorized health care system.
==========
Ummmm, no you don’t. Levy a tax and spend it on X. Article 1 section 8 as I recall. Think “The Social Security Act”.
Zoe Brain:
The Merchant Marines were considered part of the military during time of war. So your premise is incorrect. But I’ll play along with your insane and wicked proposal.
You would have to prove, and there would have to be evidence, that without lifelong government health care a military could not be properly fielded and the federal government would collapse. This would be the only reason for government intervention.
But never in the history of this nation has it ever been true, even when the life expectancy of Americans was 45 years of age, that we could not adequately provide a military because children did not have health or health care. Even so, such an unbelievable state of affairs would only be temporary and not require a perpetual system of cradle to grave Marxist health care.
Your proposal is merely a scheme to justify thievery and totalitarian government (e.g. criminal activity).
The healthiest people, generally, in any civilization are the very age group who march off to war. This is another fact that makes your argument ludicrous. We don’t let babies go to war (though I think you would) and we don’t put old ladies on the front line (though I think you would). We put people in their prime on the front line and these people automatically have the best health even in bad times. Nature makes sure these people (of reproductive age) are the strongest.
Only an imbecile thinks we don’t have enough healthy people to fill the ranks of the US military this very day or anytime in the near future. We have too many soldiers at this time. In fact, if we tried to bring them all home right now it would trouble the unemployment situation. All staffing quotas are now satisfactory.
What you are actually suggesting is slavery and subjugation to the state over personal choice and personal freedom.
Indeed, if you want to do a bang-up job of making little children healthy cannon fodder some day, you are going to have to advocate that government should control everything about their lives or you cannot be taken seriously.
No doubt everything that might impact their health and suitability to serve as cannon fodder to save your sorry self would be relevant: from the things they read (they need to be taught to die for you), the games they play (the more aggressive the better, especially the girls who better not get away with prissy stuff like tea parties), the songs they sing (like with the Hitler youth), and the foods they eat.
Of course, the numbers of hours they sleep and the kinds of exercise they get is extremely important and if the government doesn’t control this carefully all could be lost. You cannot be too careful you know; the state has to survive and other peoples little cannon-fodders-to-be need to be in perfect shape!
That is really what you propose and if you are serious, nothing can be overlooked.
You are suggesting that the health of children is primarily not for their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but to save your hide and to save the state.
Yours is not an idea suitable to a free people. It is suitable for an evil people who have no respect for human life.
With access to cheap medicines at Wal Mart ($4 at Walmart),and access to affordable preventive care, the poor in America have MORE miraculous everyday medical treatments and procedures available to them any time of the day or night than the richest members of the founding generation ever had access to. Poor children today are already ahead of most generations of Americans in the past with health care and these past generations had an adequate ability to supply the military with warm bodies.
If the founders believed that healthy individuals could not be found because parents were imbeciles and neglect their children (as you suggest) they would have taken the responsibilities of child rearing away from their parents (as you suggest).
You are a freak and a fascist. America is about a free people, not a “free state”. North Korea is a free state. Free to starve its people to death and torture them along the way. And free to shuffle citizens around like cattle, pawns, and cannon fodder. The kind of place you would like.
James Madison said:
“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”
That would be YOU.
“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”
That would be YOU.
“Each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations”
That would be YOU.
“Children are not a resource, metaphorically or otherwise. Children are growing, maturing people, dependent upon their elders for moral, spiritual, ethical, and practical guidance. They are not something to be shaped, fabricated, or spent in the manufacturing, production, or political process.” Earl Zarbin
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/our-most-precious-resource/
“Chauvinistic indoctrination becomes a useful tool of the state in wartime, as when President Woodrow Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to build support for American participation in World War I and to blunt opposition by constituencies with European roots. The nation’s high schools were prime propaganda targets and received hundreds of thousands of copies of a CPI-produced pamphlet designed to stir anti-German sentiment. “Germany does not really wage war,” the pamphlet stated.
“She assassinates, massacres, poisons, tortures, intrigues; she commits every crime in the calendar, such as arson, pillage, murder, and rape.” Joel Spring commented, “From the standpoint of the public schools, [the CPI] was the first major attempt to bring the goals of locally controlled schools into line with the policy objectives of the federal government.” Daniel Hager
And then he sent them off to be cannon fodder in the bloody cruel trenches of Europe for no good reason.
Vince,
I saw that article about Prof. Fried. It is amazing that Reagan’s solicitor General admits Obamacare is constitutional, but we have a District Judge using Tony Perkin’s amicus brief language to decide it is unconsitutional. Crazy.
Thanks for the update on the Senate vote. I will have to look up what the final tally was.
Even Reagan’s Solicitor General agrees that the Act is constitutional.
Charles Fried’s testimony:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-02-02%20Fried%20Testimony.pdf
The Senate failed to pass the repeal bill today, so that grandstanding effort is dead.
The Senate did pass a repeal of a burdensome 1099 requirement.
I repeat, it is better to address these problems by the political process that by judicial fiat.
Tootie wrote:
What an excellent argument, though your conclusion is self-evidently incorrect.
Merchant seamen were not in the navy. They were, however, a vital resource that could be used to crew a navy, so as you said, it was creditable of Congress to provide for their health and welfare.
But what about the military, in particular, the “well regulated Militia” mentioned in the 2nd amendment that is “necessary to the security of a free State”?
What is the militia?
US vs Miller defines it:
In this day and age, it includes females too.
Thus all able-bodied adults in the USA are inactive militia, either in the military, or, like merchant seamen, potentially so.
There is therefore an equally valid argument that in this day and age, all able-bodied adults are similarly situated to merchant seamen in the 18th century.
So how do we ensure a continuing supply of able-bodied adults, so necessary to the security of a free state? By ensuring they are able-bodied, that is, providing health services in some way. But what happens in 10 years, or 20? To ensure we have able-bodied adults, we must have able-bodied children.
This is an impeachable argument, as it is one step removed, yet it is no great stretch to say that if the state has a compelling interest in the health and welfare of merchant seamen as potential members of the navy, and thus a similar interest in the health of all adults as potential members of the militia, then it also has an interest in the health of children who will in the future become potential members of the militia.